Whitman V. America Trucking Associations, Inc - Essay Example

[Manager] 26 May Whitman V. America Trucking Associations, Inc. 531 US 457(2001) This case is within the coverage of Environmental Law. The issue in question is the constitutionality of the air quality standards that the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) issued for ground-level ozone and fine particles which are considered harmful effects of air pollution that can endanger both the public safety and public health. In a review conducted by EPA, it revealed that public health can be improved by lowering emission standards for ozone and particulates. The fine particles found in air pollution can cause premature death and chronic bronchitis. On the other hand, ozone can cause lung inflammation and prolonged exposure may cause permanent damage to the lungs. Both pollutants are considered as health hazards since they are closely associated with increased hospital admissions and can cause respiratory problems like asthma and respiratory tract infection. EPA lowered the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) which was challenged by industry groups for failure to account the cost of compliance. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the industry groups. Hence, appeal was made by EPA. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of EPA’s delegated power to set national air quality standards for the protection of the public from harmful effects of air pollution, without considering the economic costs of implementing the standards. The quality standards set forth by EPA is imbued with public interest for the protection of the nation’s health and safety. The High Court ruled that there was no violation of the non-delegated doctrine and EPA acted within the bounds of the delegated power. The key issue in this case is whether or not the (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has the delegated legislative power to enact new regulations and set national air quality standards for the protection of the public from harmful effects of air pollution. Under Section 109(b)(1) of the CAA (Clean Air Act) enacted by Congress, it empowered the EPA to set ambient air quality standards and promulgate regulations for identified air pollutants. When the EPA reviewed this information after five years, the EPA issued an amendment to the Act in Section 109(b)(1), requiring the EPA to set air quality standards necessary for the protection of public health “the attainment and maintenance of which are request to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety.” Plaintiff American Trucking Associations, Inc. brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia and argued that the amendment is unconstitutional while at the same time questioned the delegated legislative power to the EPA. The district court held that the CAA did not provide any “intelligible principles” to the EPA for enacting new regulations, and suggested that the EPA could avoid unconstitutionality by adopting a more restrictive version of Sec. 109(b)(1). The Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit Court) ruled otherwise by stating that the standard making procedure delegated by Congress to the EPA to set air quality was an unconstitutional and runs counter with Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution because it found that the EPA had construed the statute to afford no "intelligible principle" to direct the exercise of authority of the agency. EPA misinterpreted the statute believing that the agency can exercise of authority and implement a national ambient air quality standard. The district court remanded the regulation to the EPA for review, and the agency appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, thus, prompting Whitman and the EPA appealed to the US Supreme Court. The ruling of the Supreme Court found that degree of agency discretion that is acceptable varies according to the scope of the power conferred to it by the legislature. Administrative agencies, like EPA, are not given full discretion and blanket authority when faced with all-encompassing regulatory schemes compared to making minor regulations that affect only a limited number of people. EPA is thus considered as quasi-legislative. It is still Congress which will delegate the decision-making power to administrative agencies and must lay down an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform. My position is that the decision of the High Court is correct, EPA’s authority must be within the limits set forth by Congress. According to Orszag, “the balance of benefits and costs shall still be dependent on Congress. However, administrations will either implement a stricter or less strict regulations depending on political viewpoint rather than efficiency (p. 658).” The Justices unanimously disagreed in the decision rendered in this case. In the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia, the term “public health” satisfied the requirement of “intelligible principle”. The Supreme Court held that the CAA properly delegated legislative power to the EPA, but that the EPA could not consider implementation costs in setting primary and secondary NAAQS. “Justice Thomas went along with the ruling of the Court for the reason that parties did not present winning arguments. Thomas concurrence raised questions on the nature of the representative government in the US. He stated that he would be willing to address the question whether the Court’s delegation had strayed too far from out Founders’ understanding of separation of powers. In his view, Justice Thomas stated that members of the Congress must take full responsibility for the actions of the National Government, rather than delegating important decisions to administrative agencies, thus ducking accountability” (Dorf 18). Justice Thomas recognized the power of the Congress to delegate the law-making power to EPA. However, Congress must be held accountable for the consequences of the delegated power. To conclude, based on my humble opinion, I believe that Supreme Court rendered the correct decision. EPA has the delegated authority granted by Congress, but must act only within the conferred power. The standards set forth by EPA concerns national interest as it touches on public health and safety. Hence, given this nature, matters of transcendental importance to alleviate interest of the general public and the protection of the environment should be held constitutional. The EPA has an inter-generational responsibility to the nation to ensure that clean air is enjoyed by our children and our children’s children. Hence, the Supreme Court’s decision in upholding the validity of the standards imposed by EPA is meritorious. Works Cited: Field, Barry C. Environmental Policy: An Introduction. University of Michigan: Waveland Press, Inc. 2007. Print. Whitman V. America Trucking Associations 531 US 457(2001) Orszag, Peter R. American Economic Policy in the 1990s. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002. Print. Sunstein, Cass R. The Cost-Benefit State: The Future Regulation Protection. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association, 2002. Print. Dorf, Michael C. No litmus test: Law versus Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Maryland, USA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. Print. Read More